Rather than having periodic general elections, with very limited
choice as to candidates, each elector is at any time free to choose any
person of his or her preference (who must of course be willing so to act),
to be his or her elected representative, always on a revokeable basis.
Each day is a possible ‘Election Day’ for each elector and each
representative.

Representatives can then delegate their work-load as they see fit, to
those they have confidence in. In this age of easy communications, there
need be no restriction on the total number of elected representatives
meeting in Assembly by means of electronic and tele- conferencing. The
emphasis shifts from ‘winners and losers’ to ‘market shares.’

The relationship between elector and representative is a standard
civil-law contractual one (offer -> acceptance -> performance (->
payment)). Representatives may form mutual-interest groups, which might
in some respects approximate the present political coalitions. New
patterns of support will emerge. They will not be beholden to political
parties. Elections will cease to be periodic all-or-nothing affairs, and
will reflect and accommodate gradual shifts in opinion and support, as
electors change and develop their preferences between representatives –
and their policies – over time.

(A variant of modern public-key/private-key security cryptosystems
can easily be arranged, to ensure a secret ballot for those preferring
such an arrangement. It should be pointed out that most of the present
‘secret-ballot’ electoral systems are only as ‘secret’ as the authorities
running them want them to be).

The legislative functions of the elected assembly will be carried out
by means of the representatives voting on measures, each casting that
number of votes corresponding to the sum of contracting electors they
represent at the time of the vote. Public laws would require the assent
of a real majority — preferably at least 50% of the electorate’s votes
(after subtracting ‘votes-against’ from ‘votes-for’). I expect this to
result in many fewer — and clearer — statute laws.

It should be worthwhile to introduce ‘sunset’ review provisions for
existing legislation, (as distinct from the body of civil law), so that
pre-existing legislation (much of which is dated, inappropriate, corrupt
in origin, harmful or poorly-thought-out) will be subject to review and
re-enactment or repeal.

A Written Constitution, setting out the basic principles of universal
human rights — to facilitate formal and legal enforceability of those
rights by means of accessible _trial by jury_ — is both educational and
advantageous for liberty, with entrenching clauses barring attacks on key
individual rights and liberties, and forbidding cruel or unusual
punishments, and so on. Every country in the world _nominally_
subscribes to these principles already, in the 1947 Universal Declaration
of Human Rights:

(The drafting of this document _preceded_ its adoption by the UN,
and acceptance of the UDHR does not imply endorsement of the UN variant).

It is usually easier to convince people (and governments) that they
should _respect_ what they’ve already _actually assented to_.

Representatives may go on to appoint an Executive to deal with
defence matters, external affairs and so on. There may also be a second
(non-spending) oversight and revision chamber, or Senate, with
representatives especially chosen for their wisdom, knowledge, character,
standing and so on – as electors and their representatives may wish.

For the honest and ethical political representatives, there are many
advantages to be had from Democratic Agorism, and few disadvantages. Each
can work to build up their electoral constituency (‘market share’), and to
offer the most attractive and worthwhile programmes, to ensure ongoing
support and revenue. Each can look forward to promoting their preferred
objectives. Each can have some security from the domination of party,
leader or faction. Every shade of opinion can be proportionally
represented.

For the elector, the available opportunities will be very considerably
improved over the present unresponsive legislatures and government
monopolies. There will be a whole new series of market-places, offering
packaged choices of services with strong incentives to be efficient and
attractive. Programmes compete for electoral support on a basis which
facilitated comparison for quality and value over time. The existence of
a variety of simultaneously available alternatives will considerably
enhance individual freedoms and reduce social conflicts arising from
monopoly provision.